Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

« Older Entries

The Prophetic Physician

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

Uncritical faith is rampant, especially in this country. America tries to focus its energy on affording individuals the freedom to pursue whatever endeavor they wish (unless its a gay endeavor). This means that people can claim just about anything they want and expect no obstacles blocking that claim from generating money.

A perfect example is Bishop Womack.

Dr. Shammah Womack-El is a world class Naturopathic Holistic Scientist and Master Herbalist of Drugless Medicine, which he calls God’s Natural Pharmacy. He believes that God has a cure and a remedy in the earth for all dis-eases. Dr. Womack-El can help you with supervision to rejuvenate your life and detoxify your body tissues for improved health and longevity.

Most doctors spend time trying to suppress symptoms instead of treating root causes of problems. At the Chapel of Miracles my approach is just the opposite, my holistic team and I offer our clients a serene, supportive and skillful environment, where advanced natural techniques support healing and HIGH LEVEL HEALTH, rather than settling for the shortsighted goal of mere symptom suppression.

Poor saps come to people like this expecting miracles and willing to pay through the teeth for it. Womack need not supply his customers with evidence or logic because most Americans have lost the ability to care. What this means is hard working Americans lose their money to schemes and tricks and never become the wiser. The imagination is a powerful thing, and it is easily manipulated.

However confused you are, whether it is believing in magical Jews walking on water or that the cure for MS and ALS can be found in plants growing in Asia BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD YOU SO, you will always be able to ask questions and form logical opinions. This ability is present in all humans of sound mind, yet so few use it.

If one were to look at Womack’s page carefully, one could see logical flaws right off the bat. For example:

Thousands have reversed chronic and degenerative diseases through our all naturopathic healing approach.

A sentence like that convinces almost all average thinkers of just about anything. But it is a logical fallacy. It even has a name, its called the bandwagon fallacy. Just because x number of people believe that y is true doesn’t make y true.

Another slightly more complex logical flaw in Womack’s ‘argument’:

There is a remedy in the earth for every dis-ease.

If this were true, why would we still have diseases? Earth is also the source of a lot of death. Consider arsenic, a natural but extremely fatal element found on Earth. How about Earthquakes? Volcanoes? Tornadoes?

People are all too often fooled by the word “natural”. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is healthy. There are many natural mushrooms that are poisonous.

The most hilarious has to be:

Also, see our products for holistic living, such as our Supernatural Manna, which works your body out without you going to the gym. I call it “THE GYM IN A BOTTLE”, which shapes your body into a healthy, fat-burning machine. It’s a Magic Green Superfood that works you out and into shape.

Isn’t it amazing that people will just believe something like that? Without evidence, without proper support or logical reasoning? This is absolutely rampant in this country. And it is this uncritical thinking which can lead to wars, injustice, crimes, violence… Imagine believing someone is a terrorist because someone told you to. Without evidence or logical reasoning you continue believing this person to be a terrorist and treat him as such. This happens all the time.

Womack is an extreme example of someone taking advantage of REALLY stupid people. Like everything in life there are varying degrees of mysticism and superstition. But if you can remain critical and skeptical of any claims without proper peer reviewed evidence, than you can spot these shams very easily. In fact, purchase my new magical book for only $4509.78 where I teach you how to channel spiritual energy from the 98th dimension to see schemes and scams easily! Learn it in just minutes a day!

P.S. – If you were to look closely at this website you can find MANY spelling and grammar errors.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Health, Religion, Science | 1 Comment »

Ignorance with Wings Part 4 ::embryonic stem cells::

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

Embryonic stem cells:

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types.

I’m sure you know what this means. ES cells have a wondrous potential to treat or even cure some very debilitating, paralyzing, or fatal diseases and conditions. At this moment, there are millions of men, women and children who are alive and breathing that suffer from one of a number of these diseases. Their lives are torturous, painful, and barely worth living. It seems rather ridiculous then that we don’t fund or expand our research with embryonic stem cells. It fact, it is extremely ridiculous.

The uncritical religious, who’s decisions and beliefs require faith (a principle that has no evidence to back it up) to exist, do everything they can to stop embryonic stem cell research. Why, you ask? The reason is surprisingly absurd.

The religious think that life begins at some point before the embryo, and that destroying an embryo for the stem cells is killing a life. These very same people will turn around and fully support the death penalty keep in mind! For some reason, they are obsessed with controlling people and their choices, and therefor wish to remain on the side of the argument that lacks reason and evidence.

Let us consider some facts, shall we?

1) Embryos consist of 50 to 150 cells IN TOTAL. They are nothing but a collection of microscopic cells that you could count with your eye. At this stage, the embryo is known as a blastocyte, which forms 4 to 5 days after fertilization. In fact, some scientists don’t consider a blastocyte and embryo. You have to understand that there is NO human qualities in a blastocyte. It is literally a simple collection of cells that can be counted by the human eye. 2) Embryos abort naturally ALL THE TIME. In fact, more than half of all embryos die naturally. Embryo destruction is actually the norm, rather than the exception. So that puts an enormous hole in the religious or faith-based idea that embryos are lives that should not be knowingly killed. 220 million embryos die a year naturally, that is more than any other cause of death that we know of. Keep in mind that; Cancer, in all its forms, kills 7.6 million people per year, In six years, the Second World War killed around 60 million people…

We don’t defend an embryo’s right to free speech, because it cannot speak, in fact, it cannot do anything. It has no neurological system, no consciousness, no thoughts, no mind, no brain… no nothing. Yet some would ascribe more rights to it than a black man on death row. This is the ultimate contradiction of the religious right in the United States. Infuriatingly stupid, isn’t it?

There are certain moral questions that are common, that test one’s true morals. For example, consider the train that is flying out of control at break neck speeds. If it continues on its current track, it will fly off of a cliff a la Back to the Future Part III and kill everyone on board; men, women, children… embryos. But you are standing at a switch on the track, and you can switch the track to safely divert the train away from the cliff, however, there is a man tied to the diverted track. If you flip the switch, you kill the one man tied to the track but save the hundreds of passengers on board.

This is not meant to be an easy decision, but no one would call you immoral if you were to flip the switch.

The point is, we have millions of people today who are alive, breathing, have nervous systems, thoughts, dreams, the right to free speech and so on, who suffer and are at risk of death. Trying to save the life of a group of cells over these living breathing human beings is like not switching the track to save the one man tied to the diverted track. In fact, it is much worse. It is as if instead of another man tied to the track, it was a cockroach, and you saved the roach at the expense of everyone on the train.

So how come we don’t consider all 220 million naturally destroyed embryos loss of human life? Because it isn’t loss of human life. You cannot die if you were never born.

If Christians really cared about the lives of children, we’d see a stronger push for decreasing infant mortality in developing worlds. But we don’t see that. We see anti-homosexual bills, sodomy laws, and fighting Islam.

Obviously the potential for life is not the same as life itself, because then every time we wore a condom, every time we used spermacide, every time we went to the sperm bank, every time we masturbated, we would be killing hundreds of millions of people. Does this sound right to you? No. Of course not. An embryo is not a life, a zygote is not a life, a fetus is not a life. Potential life is not life, hence the word “potential”. You don’t put people in jail before they commit the crime.

But MisterE, why not cut the controversy and just stick with adult stem cells? Well, adult stem cells may not have the potential the embryonic stem cells have. We of course need to do more research on this, but science is under the impression at the moment that adult stem cells are unlikely to be nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are obtained from human embryos. They have the capacity to turn into any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells have been found in some mature human tissues, including the brain and bone marrow. There is a scientific debate over whether their ability to become specialized is limited to their tissue of origin, or whether they can turn into other types of tissue.

Adult stem cells have proven their value to medicine. For example, bone marrow transplants are routinely used to treat some cancers and blood diseases. But it’s unlikely that bone marrow stem cells can replace all of the different types of cells that are damaged by disease. Embryonic stem cells are the only ones that are likely to do that.

You have to understand that science does not recognize most, if any religious tenants as fact. But science is where we get our medicine, our help, our computers and advancements and so on… so its obviously the area of reality that we can be sure is real. We have no scientific definition for a human life, and obviously, it has to start somewhere. Since ethereal ideas such as spirits and life creation by a deity are extremely unlikely, we avoid them as explanations. To define a human life, we can only turn to science for the answer, and if science doesn’t have an answer then there may be no answer.

If you look at it purely from a scientific and natural perspective, we are mammals. We are simply organisms that live on this planet that have evolved some very fancy brains. However, a mammal can only live when separated from its chromosomal donor, physiologically. As long as it is a part of the mother, it cannot survive as its own entity, and perhaps remains simply a part of the mother. A human fetus doesn’t develop a nervous system and a brain-stem until very late in the game, and even then it is uncertain whether or not they can comprehend or understand pain, for they are not yet alive. They are being made, like bread in an oven. The question can then become: “Does life start when consciousness starts”? Again, science does not yet have a theory that tells us the precise moment consciousness begins. It is entirely feasible that someday we may find that moment, for it is becoming increasingly clear that consciousness is merely the result of incomprehensible numbers of neural connections in our brains. Without neural connections like that, are we conscious? Are apes conscious? Are cockroaches conscious?

These are all very interesting questions that science may or may not some day answer (and will adhere to script scientific scrutiny so it can be considered fact, unlike religious tenants that can withstand no scrutiny and have no supporting evidence). In the meantime, we are sure (to a statistically significant degree) that an embryo cannot feel pain, is not a human life, and should not be considered so over the well beings and mortality of those we KNOW to be alive.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Family and Society, Health, Law, Politics, Religion, Science | 1 Comment »

Ignorance with Wings Part 3 ::intelligent design::

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

It is no joking matter that many people, nay, most people in the middle and southern states of this country actually believe that man was designed by some grand architect in the sky, and that evolution is nonsense.

The problem with their beliefs is that there is no evidence backing up their claims. Not one single shred, in fact, ignoring the theory of evolution, there is so much evidence AGAINST intelligent design that its a miracle it still is considered ’seriously’ by some. You’d really have to be quite blind to the world to dismiss evolution for a magical explanation.

But the fact remains, evolution is the single most likely theory in science. We are more sure evolution occurred than we are that cells divide the way we think they do, that gravity exists, and that the big bang occurred. Mind you, this is no small feat. The theories of gravity, cells, and the big bang have HUGE amounts of evidence, observation, independent confirmation, and reliable analyzed data behind it. HUGE.

I’m not going to make this a long post simply because I would be repeating myself over and over. But I will repeat some basic things. 1)Geologic record mixed with carbon dating confirms evolution 2)Scientific observation of species at present confirms evolution 3)Mutation of viruses such as Avian Flu or SARS confirms evolution etc…

Most confused people tend to think micro-evolution occurs without macro-evolution. These people haven’t thought it through enough, and probably dismiss logic regularly. Macro-evolution, very simply put, is micro-evolution over a period of massive amounts of years. What frustrates the creationist is that understanding evolution requires the acceptance of change over time. Very little, with the exception of bacteria, occurs over night in the context of speciation. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Most creationists are so far removed from reality that science means very little to them. This is why I.D. and creation are considered myths, because 1)No evidence supports them 2)The people that insist on their veracity have extremely low standards and scrutinizing abilities

Now, one should note, claiming that something is wrong simply because the person who claims it to be right is an idiot, doesn’t make that claim wrong. But what does make it wrong is ENDLESS evidence against it. Creation is so implausible that it is sometimes infuriating that people still believe it. Some would simply have to accept the fact that many people still have below average intellectual capabilities.

You see, every branch of science has evidence and proof that all point to evolution being true. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, genetics, physics, biology, microbiology,  epidemeology, and so on, all support, nay require, the theory of evolution to be true.

How can you ignore the fossils for Christ’s sake?  Most creationists are unaware of how extremely unlikely fossilization is. In order for a specimen to be fossilized, very specific and rare circumstances must converge on a single unlikely point in time. Yet we have millions upon millions of fossils dating back billions of years. Life and speculation was so common and affluent on this planet for billions of years that the laws of probability require there to be fossilized remains. We have evidence, that we can see and touch, that we descended from a common ancestor. Yet, the creationists resist.

I’ve heard everything from arguments like “How could Earth be so perfectly suited to man” to “Why don’t we see dogs turning into bees in the lab”? These are some VERY stupid arguments to be made, and barely ever deserve a response, for the person asking them is merely demonstrating how little they understand science and reality. Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote “Critics [of evolution] exclusively trained in classics or in mathematics, who have never determined a scientific fact in their lives by induction from experiment or observation, prate learnedly about Mr. Darwin’s method, which is not inductive enough, not Baconian enough, forsooth for them.”

Basically, criticizing science without knowing science is ridiculous, yet it is what the creationists and I.D. proponents do all the time. Science is undeniable, unbiased, and not subject for argument. That is the whole point of it. Science is the search for truth, and truth can only be found when large amounts of people agree that something is true with a %99.9 certainty. This can only be achieved if your sample size is large enough, your data is wide enough, and your analyzing is done independently by many different people.

This is how we arrive upon a scientific THEORY. Theories are as close to laws, fact, or truth as you will ever get. Creationism is so far behind that, so immeasurably low on the level of scrutiny that it hardly belongs in the thoughts of intelligent men and women. In fact, it doesn’t.

You see, not only do we have NO reason to believe that creation occurred, we have mountains of evidence to suggest that something else occurred. Its a double-team!

Enjoy heathens.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Religion, Science | 2 Comments »

The Benefits of atheism

Monday, November 19th, 2007

A lot of the religious on this site have been pressuring me to explain the benefits of being an atheist. I’m not entirely sure why they are so caught up on this concept, in order to understand it one only needs to be critical, skeptical, and have the ability to question. None of the religious on this site have demonstrated such abilities.

However, I will continue despite my slight confusion as to why it needs to be spelled out.

SKEPTICISM
Being an atheist isn’t just about refusing to believe unjustified claims and baseless tenants, its about being skeptical. An atheist knows that it is very easy to convince someone of something, no matter how crazy that something is. Most people just simply don’t question. Being a skeptic about religion for example, saves you from being caught up in religious fervor and eventually limiting people’s freedoms because they aren’t in the same religion. A skeptic knows that there is no valid argument (let alone any evidence) for restricting gays from getting married, in fact, no religious argument is valid. Why? Because its predicated on the false idea that certain things are true without evidence, such as the existence of super magical beings and floating Jews. The existence of God and the power of Jesus are two very good examples. These things have absolutely NO evidence to support them, NO rational theories that can be tested to explain them, and NO consistency within the communities of people who believe them.

As a skeptic, I also don’t waste my money on cold remedies, psychics, herbs, acupuncture, and other mythical things because I can say with 99% certainty that they don’t exist or work. Why? Because I asked questions and I refused to be led blindly by very convincing people. I did research, looked up studies, thought about it rationally and logically and concluded that none of those things mentioned above have any scientific or valid claims of veracity. They simply don’t. And if one day they do, then I’ll change my tune, but until there is proper evidence and testable hypothesis, they will remain pseudo-scientific and false.

SCIENCE
Many have tried to debunk science, and all have failed. Pure science is the most foolproof method of understanding reality there is, and NOTHING comes close to its stature. I have challenged people to prove me wrong and no one has come even close. Do you know why? Because everything in science is testable. If you looked at a list of scientific theories, you would find a list of very testable and predictable things. (Don’t make me school you on the difference between the word ‘theory’ and ’scientific theory’).

Sure, some hypothesis in science seem very nutty, and to the untrained layman almost religious or magical in nature. But that is where the line is. Take quantum mechanics for example. Sub-atomic particles behave completely independent of Newtonian physics. An electron can jump from one valence to another without actually traveling in between states. Obviously, a baseball can’t jump from the pitcher to the catcher without traveling in between. If you were skeptical and free from being led blindly, you would question this left and right no matter how convincing the person is who told you. The first step is to read peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject. These articles get reviewed by very skeptical people who usually don’t take any bullshit. The excellent part of science is that you can read multiple studies on the same thing and compare conclusions. You can check the methods and controls, read about the authors, combine analysis and see if there is indeed something conclusive.

You see, this is how laymen hear about things like quantum mechanics. So many independent researchers will conclude very similar things, and then, and only then, does it start to become a viable and testable hypothesis.

And if you still don’t believe it, you are more than welcome to test it yourself.

You may think that this is no different than being brainwashed into believing that 47 virgins await you in heaven and that God watches your every move. However, there is no equivalent to science in religion. There are no independent, double blind studies in religion. In fact, every study of prayer, for example, has concluded that prayer does nothing of measurable effect. So why should you believe in something so outrageous and contrary to BLARING evidence as creation? There is no bible in science. Take the bible away from Earth and suddenly everyone would be touting different tenants and truths of faith. Even with the bible, people tout different tenants and truths of faith. There are many different sects of Christianity alone, each with a different interpretation of the bible. The inconsistency in the bible alone leads us to believe that it is invalid as a source of information. The moment science is applied to religion, all of religion disintegrates. That is why there is so much opposition to science amongst the religious, which actually doesn’t make any sense.

You cannot oppose science. Science says nothing. It has no voice, no bias and no opinion. It is simply the study of reality. Photography doesn’t have a voice or a bias, it just is. You can’t oppose photography. Scientists themselves may develop biases or bad habits such as misinterpreting evidence or interfering with results. It does happen, but the beauty of science is that it will swallow that up. It accounts for human error. Science is really just about statistics. How likely is X to be true? It is logical to assume that X is true, we have 150 independent studies that concluded that X is true, we can predict X with, so far, 100% accuracy, therefore, X is more than likely true.

No such thing in religion.

PEACE
I know, as an atheist, that I can’t be convinced that gays are bad, that we went into Iraq for WMDs, and that woman shouldn’t have the choice to abort their fetuses; because the evidence all points to the contrary. But aside from that, I don’t have any alternate or hidden agendas. I live my life knowing that the likelihood of there being a super powerful being floating somewhere watching my ever move, or that I could go to heaven or hell depending on my sins is so low that I can safely assume it non existent.

I don’t have to worry about someone not being of my religion and finding ways to condemn them or oppress them, that I don’t distrust someone or seek to discriminate against someone because they aren’t acting in the divine way that I would have them act… I just don’t have to worry about that.

I can be kind and giving without the hidden agenda of scoring points with Jesus. I do it to better humanity, not to serve some mythical divine purpose. I know that there is nothing wrong with sex and I enjoy it thoroughly, enriching my life and others. I don’t keep myself from eating certain foods, from enjoying wonderful things in life just because I think magical beings will condemn me later. I can make my own damn choices, not have a preacher do it for me. I can tell myself what to think, what is right and what is wrong, I can concern myself with the pursuit of happiness, and not the oppression of other people’s happiness. I know that my moral compass is pure and righteous simply because I follow one basic rule; don’t interfere with someone else’s happiness.

I see on the news every day about bombs going off in the middle east, people dying, being murdered by U.S. soldiers, Iraq soldiers, sectarian violence and so on… all because of religion. Jerusalem will never be peaceful until religion is a thing of the past.

THE DOWNSIDE
Religion can be therapeutic, especially in times of duress. I don’t take solace in the idea that when my mom dies she goes to some kind of paradise. I know the hard and unpleasant truth that she simply just rots in the ground as decaying organic matter. Its terribly sad, and if my mother died I’d cry for a long time. We are animals, creatures composed of organics, and we are bound to them, at least for now. When the brain ceases functioning, it dies, meaning that electrical impulses no longer pass through it. This results in the inability to keep the rest of the body alive, and the person dies. The person’s memories and thoughts are encoded physiologically in the brain in trillions of neural pathways. We have no technology that reads that, so when the brain can’t sustain itself it is lost. The pathways decay and the person is gone.

As I write this I grow very sad because death is such a permanent and cold thing. There is no mercy in death, and its very hard to deal with that. Religion can soften the blow, but I honestly would rather be privy to the truth than treated like a child, no matter how painful it is. But that is just me.

Enjoy.

Posted in Religion, Science | 2 Comments »

Why evolution is and always has been

Thursday, August 3rd, 2006

Its disturbing to me how many people are still not properly educated about how we got here and where we came from as a species. Evolution is not one choice of many, it is what happened, and there is no getting around it.

Often people turn to various other explanation, none of which can provide any evidence, for evolution, but at present there has been no good argument made or any evidence tot he contrary. Evolution is what happened and still happens right now, there is no way around it. I’m sorry. You can kid yourself all you want, but you cannot be satisfied with any answer other than ‘evolution’ if you’re interested in facts and evidence (people not interested in facts or evidence have no business every arguing and trying to make a point).

 

The Kansas electorate has voted to get rid of two of its anti-evolution school board reps in the State’s primary elections. The result has been welcomed by pro-evolution board members and science advocacy groups.

Although it is just a primary, it means the two ousted candidates will not stand for re-election come the General Elections. Both Republican and Democrat parties are also now more likely to field candidates who support the teaching of evolution.

Janet Waugh, a pro-evolution school board member, told New Scientist that she is thrilled. "The people of Kansas are tired of being the laughing stock of not just the nation, but the world," she added, referring to the 2005 decision by the school board to change the definition of science so that non scientific priciples could be taught in science classes.

You see, thats the thing, creationism is more of a superstition, and to teach it in school is hilarious and sad. They were the laughing stock of every community, every developed nation, and every human being with proper education, and I’m glad they noticed that. Creationism is what it is, just a story that has no evidence or any basis in fact, therefor, whether its true or not, needs to be kept out of school.

Ignoring evolution or trying to pretend it doesn’t exist is like looking at a dog and trying to convince yourself and others its a dolphin.

Here are some absolutes, facts of life that cannot be disputed what so ever:

  • the planet is approximately 4.5bn years old
  • the emergence of life on Earth occurred around 2.5bn years ago
  • the trick of photosynthesis, which is described as the "ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life … depends"
  • that since its emergence, life has taken various forms, all of which continue to evolve
  • commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

Adam recently said this in response to one of my earlier posts:

We’ve often discovered one part of a theory was wrong and others were right. One can hold that the idea of microevolution (where changes occur within a species) is correct, because its an observable phenomena while not holding to the theory of macroevolution.

Actually, nobody thinks that. It is known that changes occurring within a species is exactly what leads to species changing species. This is exactly what I’m talking about, people are either not told or are refusing to see the point. There is no difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, you can’t believe one and not the other, its completely absurd. Thats like believing that mammals have babies but thats not how the population grows… or something equally as absurd.

All evolution, from adaptive phenotypes to a change in species occurs from random mutation. I am not even sure creationists know the definition of a species, let alone enough about science and life to make any assumption about evolution. If creationists believe that an animal can adapt and change themselves physically to accommodate an environment, then whats their problem with that mammal changing so much that they are now a different species? Its absurd! Is there an arbitrary line that creationists draw where a species can not pass in terms of physical change due to random mutation? Is this something that god drew? Please, quantify this line, otherwise, your theories are not acceptable.

Another thing creationists are never ever able to explain are vestigial structures. Please explain to me why humans have a tail bone, or a coccyx, or why some species of snakes have leg bones, or why giant whales have hand bones and fingers? Where is the evidence? Where is the logical reasoning? Come on, you can do better than "because god said so". That is so weak and pitiful, it means that the creationist has no answer and must rely on a ridiculous answer. If you really think god did something or does something, then embrace it fully. Don’t do the pick and chose religion crap that Donovan describes so well.

There are lots and lots of definitions of species, morphological, typological, biological, isolation… I doubt creationists understand any of this, they aren’t scientists! They are shamans and mystic believers.

One definition is that two species can’t breed with eachother, this can happen from allopatric speciation, for example, the sub-Saharan Cape Buffalo evolved into two separate species because of geological differences that they can no longer mate with each other (observed). Another observed evolutionary speciation example is the polyploidy speciation event in sympatry with regards to wheat.

Now how about artificial speciation? We have observed species change species… actually, we induced it!

For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation,[3] and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[4] (Cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.[citation needed])

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt (1988) bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.[5]

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd.

Enlarge

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd.

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[6] Dodd’s experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.[7]

So, we have observed species changing, Adam’s macro-evolution. What more proof do you want? What more evidence do you want? We’ve got fossils depicting the wide variety of hominids and how we all evolved, we have the same with horses. Would god really create millions of different species, then kill them off and create similar ones right after the other ones? Faking evolution? No, thats silly.

We have proof and evidence. There is absolutely no question that evolution has occurred and will always occur. Every argument I’ve heard has been focused on scientists not observing one species change into another… fortunately, scientists have… so it looks like creationists are out of arguments.

Enjoy.

P.S. – Adam, I didn’t mean to pick on you, any ‘you’ you see is proverbial, not directed at you Adam.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | No Comments »

Evolution is both fantastic and simple

Monday, July 31st, 2006

This weekend I went to the Natural History museum to see the Darwin exhibit, and for the first two thirds I wasn’t impressed, but the end was excellent. I love that museum, they’ve got some amazing things, like the gems and meteorite exhibits, and the human evolution exhibit. They also had a really good asian people’s exhibit that I highly recommend.

I remember at some point, a skeptical individual said that he wouldn’t believe evolution because he’s never seen it, or, scientists have never seen it. This is, of course, untrue. Scientists have been able to study bacteria, watching them evolve within hours, and this was shown at the exhibit. They do multiply very quickly!

The reason I didn’t like the first two thirds of the exhibit is because it was just about Darwin and his voyage. I’ve recently read a very detailed book called the Beak of the Finch which spent enough time on Darwin and his life that I didn’t really need to see more. But I also sort of realized that Darwin’s natural selection ideas were just the tip of the iceberg of what else goes on. There is no question to anyone with a brain that evolution occurs, the evidence and proof is all around us and irrefutable. We have bones from a series of hominids over thousand of years, showing us the various stages of our primate beginnings. If that doesn’t convince you, then what about vestigial structures? Why do giant whales have hand bones? Why do dolphins have fingers? Why do some snakes have legs (its true, some snakes actually have leg bones… explain that!)? Why do we have tailbones, an appendix or hair on our body? All vestigial structures, remnants of our evolution.

Evolution is a pretty simple and easy thing to understand. You have a species of something, and it has DNA. In life, DNA randomly mutates, giving species slightly different phenotypic responses sometimes… if it just so happens that that phenotype helps that species survive, they will be more likely to have more kids, passing along that random mutation. Eventually, the random mutations with the best phenotypes hold out via survivability. Sometimes, a species will geographically get moved, or half of them will for example for a number of reason. Seeds getting carried by birds, birds flying somewhere else, mountains forming, rivers separating… whatever. The same species in two different places. Well, one place has a predator that kills that species… but a random mutation gave a few of them the ability to be invisible to the predator, eventually being the only ones that survive, having kids with that mutation. This continues on for thousand and eventually millions of years, until that species can no longer breed with the original species is branched off from, and thus we have a new species.

Happened all the time. Huge changes like cro magnons to homosapiens occur one genetic mutation at a time.

There was an experiment conducted in the 80s with fish that lasted a very long time. Some fish had a color and a size that made them easy to be eaten by a specific predator. The scientist separated this species of fish, put one in a river without the predator, and the other in a river with the predator. Over many many many generation, he finds that the species of fish that lived with the predator shrank and changed color, making it much harder for them to be caught. The fish in the safe river didn’t change at all.

The evidence is literally everywhere, and I’m just so surprised that people can seriously look at it and ignore it. What is wrong with these people? Are they themselves un-evolved or something? Its like looking at a pair of sunglasses and refusing to believe that that is what they are. I’m not talking about different perceptions of reality and "what is reality but the information we garner from our senses", I’m talking about facts.

Its just stubborn to refuse it at this point, there is just no questioning it. It isn’t like deciding over who created the universe, or what sparked the first single celled organism to exist, that is a separate discussion… this is about bio diversity.

Consider this, rejecting evolution is like walking up to thousand and thousands of scientists who’ve proved it over and over again and calling them liars. Who would argue with Stephen Hawking? Sometimes you just have to ask questions, and see for yourself. I’ve studies evolution like it was my job, even doing experiments in college… its real people, sorry to disappoint all the laymen out there that believe in magic.

We can learn an awful lot from evolution, wonderful helpful things that will progress humanity… I don’t see how myths and stories can really accomplish anything except allow people to be selfish and unquestioning of the world around them. To really get the answer, one must ask the questions and seek the results. Thats what I like about science. Unlike religion, science starts with the negative, using a null hypothesis and assuming its true… meaning, they assume they are wrong, and try and prove themselves wrong. When the fail, thats when we have an answer. That is the exact way to approaching a problem. Religion just makes something up that is convenient, and fools the believers, making them afraid to ask questions for fear of losing control over them.

See the Darwin exhibit if you get a chance, all of you. I encourage you to try and learn something, explore other options. I’ve explored religion, and its just so short sighted and frustrating… religious people just feel comfortable putting every thing into a scape goat. Why is this this way? Because god wanted it to be. What kind of answer is that? How can that be in any satisfying, how can we learn from that?

Do what a scientist does, and try and prove yourself wrong, the worst that could happen is you strengthen your own faith.

Enjoy my rant.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | No Comments »

This is why I love where I’m from…

Friday, July 21st, 2006

I love California, and its glorious ways, and secretly, I like Arnold as well. Sure he’s a republican, and some of the things he does is just wrong, but I do think he genuinely cares about certain things that are important, and tries to make them work… sometimes.

SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday ordered a loan of up to $150 million to the state’s voter-approved stem cell research institute, catapulting California into the lead as the nation’s top public funder of the divisive research.

The governor’s action, a day after President Bush vetoed expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell science, is expected to kick-start the state’s long-delayed program to pay for cutting-edge research projects.

I wonder what the motivation was for this? I remember when Bush came to California to show support for Arnold’s gubernatorial candidacy, and eventually his win. (I think the Grey Davis recall was ridiculous and voted against it, but on the ballot you were allowed to vote no to the recall and to vote for a replacement incase the recall happened, and I either voted for the Sumo Wrestler or the Marijuana legalization attorney, can’t remember).

So why did the governator punch a hole through Bush’s stomach (a recreation of a famous Arnold quote)? Does it matter why?

The Republican governor’s move could also help him win over moderate voters by drawing a sharp distinction with the president, who is unpopular in California. The action drew derision from the governor’s opponent in the November election, Democrat Phil Angelides, who called it a "smokescreen to cloud the memory of California voters that it was Arnold Schwarzenegger who campaigned for President Bush in Ohio and helped put him back into office.

This is true… and maybe this is a political stunt, but I’m not too concerned at this point, because the right thing is being done. Stem cell research harms no one, only helps, and to this date, I’ve yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn’t do it. This isn’t quite like abortion, which isn’t a problem really, the fetuses aren’t necessarily in the womb, they are in fertilization clinics. These fetuses would normally be discarded anyway, so why not use it for good.

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do what you can to support your friends, and by friend, I mean your fellow human beings. I don’t personally know anyone suffering from any degenerative disease that could potentially be cured by stem cell therapy, yet I support it fully because I want our society to have the best treatments possible. There is no reason to not, unless you want to adopt the darwinistic idea that some people are just meant to die, and shouldn’t pass their inferior genes on. Although I think there is some merit to that argument, I think most people who develop these diseases already have kids, so why not knock it out ahead of time… and who knows, maybe we can find a way to eliminate it altogether.

Here is my favorite part of this article:

In 2004, 59% of voters passed Proposition 71 to authorize $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research. But litigation has paralyzed the bond process. A Superior Court judge issued a strongly worded ruling in May in favor of the state, calling the bonds valid. However, the plaintiffs — taxpayer and religious groups — have vowed an appeal.

Religious groups always the source of a problem. If religious groups would just keep to themselves and recognize that not everybody believes what they believe, then I think we wouldn’t have 90% of the problems we have today. Stop trying to impose your beliefs into public policy. Religion is meant to be practiced in private by whomever, however… it is not for making laws, rules, policy or decisions, it can’t, its way too illogical and poorly thought out. So seriously, get a life! Stop being the whiny little shit that sours everything for everybody. Thats what religious people do, whine all the time about this and that. If it isn’t one thing its another, god didn’t want gays to get married, Jesus is real, no he isn’t, Moses did this, the bible says don’t accept black people… for god’s sake keep it to yourself, the grown ups are trying to run a country here!

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | 2 Comments »

Why conservative/religious arguments are just silly, and why we laugh at them

Tuesday, July 18th, 2006

Oh god forbid, I made a provocative title for my post, not adhering to the best most objective ideals of the ultimate debater, I apologize! I just want you to read me, READ ME I SAY.

Okay.

I have been trying to find some good information on the argument, or position of those against stem cell research and why. The reason being is because we’re going to vote on it soon, and I think that the issues need to be made clear, especially since the administration and the conservative movement have been getting things wrong lately, and skewing if not completely ignoring the facts.

President Bush said in mid-May 2005, "I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I’ve made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal taxpayer money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I am against this."

I sort of understand his reasoning, and if its what I think it is, its actually kind of noble. He MAY be for stem cell research, but he doesn’t want the government to sanction the destruction of what some confused people believe to be life, just in case it hurts him in the polls. Or maybe, he just doesn’t want congress to take a stance on this issue… even though they take stances on other issues like gay marriage and euthanasia.

The Catholic Church is against stem-cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Pope John Paul II says embryonic stem-cell research is related to abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on innocent life.

No surprise there. Its funny, the catholic church using words that it doesn’t even understand. I mean my god, science is a different language to these guys, yet they feel so expert on the field of life that they can comment on shit they don’t even understand. So is this it? Is this the argument? The same reasoning for why abortion should be illegal? I was hoping for maybe a little more insight, but religion is an empty void of only questions and no answer it would seem.

The pope exhorted the president to reject embryonic stem-cell research as a practice related to abortion, euthanasia and other assaults on innocent human life: "A free and virtuous society," said the pope, "which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death." (Click here to read the full text of the pope’s brief comments related to stem cells.)

After the pope’s address, President Bush delivered prepared remarks, applauding Pope John Paul II for carrying, in Mr. Bush’s words, "the Gospel of life, which welcomes the stranger and protects the weak and innocent."

There are so many obvious problems with what both the Pope and Bush said. Why don’t we start however, by doing what religions hates most, getting some facts laid out.


What are embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells make up the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, a body of cells that forms in the first few days immediately following fertilization. Blastocysts are about the size of a grain of sand and typically consist of about 150 cells.

What’s so special about these cells?

Most cells can only produce limited copies of the same kind. Embryonic stem cells, by contrast, can develop into many different cell types in the body, and have a limitless ability to divide and replenish. As a result, embryonic stem cells are an ideal research material. Scientists hope they can manipulate these cells to one day produce therapies targeting specific diseases, and even regrow damaged or destroyed tissues for any part of the body.

Those are just some baseline facts. The potential for stem cells is incredible, perhaps saving the lives of many humans who otherwise wouldn’t have a chance. We are talking lives potentially being saved. The pope says we must not devalue human life, but thats exactly what we are doing by trying to limit or banish stem cell research. It doesn’t make sense to me, why go through all this effort to try and protect meaningless masses of organic matter even if it means sacrificing the lives of people who are in need of treatment that could come from stem cell research? We’re talking something that forms within the first few days after fertilization, there’s no baby, no human life, just some freaking cells trying to divide!!

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (SB471) is the Senate version of HR810, a bill approved by the House of Representatives last year that would allow researchers to use surplus embryos produced at fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.

So we can discard embryos but not… discard them? I don’t get it, thats like saying, you can kill your dog but you can’t kill it to help others… Strange reasoning! I’m using extremes here, obviously they are just restricting federal funding, but I wonder what religious conservative groups think about the fertility clinics and their discarding embryos? I mean, do they approve of fertility clinics at all? I’ve heard a ridiculous argument even here on WIS that gay marriage should be illegal because they can produce children, yet barren couples who are straight can get married and even convicted child molesters can get married… so then the conservatives are in support of fertility… having children, so they MUST be in support of fertility clinics, so they must support them discarding the embryos as part of their maintenance? Right?

Here’s the deal, stem cell research could be our chance at the next big leap forward in medicine. We could have possibly made Christopher Reeve walk! There is no way around this really, I mean, because of this abhorrent fear of progress from the conservatives, research and money is being spent and in my opinion wasted on alternatives to stem cell research. We already know that adult stem cell research is sort of a waste, so spare yourself that trouble.

Doctors have been using adult stem cells, such as the blood-forming type in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells), to perform bone-marrow transplants for more than 40 years. Similar techniques have since been developed for treating leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. But scientists believe adult stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic stem cells, and hold far less promise for extreme therapies, such as rebuilding nerves severed in a spinal cord injury.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | No Comments »

I know no one cares but…

Thursday, June 8th, 2006

I found this article interesting and thought maybe I would want to share some thoughts on it why not.

The earth formed, then life stared, followed by evolution. One of the great evidential themes of evolution is bio diversity. Like trying ti imagine the distance between Alpha Centauri and us, its impossible to wrap your brain around how diverse our biosystem is. Impossible, trust me. Bio divirsity is a direct product of evolution, and now, we have some good evidence that its a lot older than we thought.

LONDON (Reuters) - Rock formations in Western Australia may not only be some of the earliest evidence of life on Earth but also the first signs of biodiversity, scientists said on Wednesday.

Abigail Allwood, of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, who studied the structures, said they show an early ecosystem and its response to environmental conditions spanning 80 million years.

"We believe that many different types of organisms may have coexisted at this time, so that we have not just the oldest evidence of life, but we also have the oldest evidence of biodiversity," she said in a statement.

Allwood and her colleagues analysed different stromatolites in rocks covering more than 10 km (6 miles) in length. Their findings are reported in the journal Nature.

The stromatolites varied in shape and each had their own environmental niche. Because of their complexity the researchers believe they could not have a chemical origin.

The varied complexity of organisms this planet sustains is mind boggling. And this discovery is as well. To me, it says that we were meant to have biodiversity, and that is it biodiversity that is life. I can’t tell you why, only that it is one of the first major aspects of early Earth life ever to occur, so early on in evolution.

My girlfriend is reading a great book called Parasite rex, which goes into detail about the different types of parasites out there, something I posted on once a long time ago. There are incredibly amazing parasites out there, ones that actually sit on top of the brains of other creatures and control their movements! No Joke! Why a god would be interested in that I have no idea.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | 1 Comment »

The little country that could

Monday, January 9th, 2006

Iran has resumed its nuclear program. What for you ask? Why, for energy they say.

So what is the problem? The U.S. and the EU fear that Iran could be developing nuclear weapons with the technology, rather than power plants.

I find it a little odd that some countries are allowed to have missiles, and others aren’t. No one has imposed embargoes on us, yet I’m sure we have hundreds of nuclear missiles sitting in silos around the country. And you know what, I’d be more afraid of us using them than anyone else. But, since we are team america, world police, its okay.

On the subject of police, police squads have massive weapons at their disposal, very lethal and destructive indeed. Yet, civilians aren’t allowed to have any of those weapons unless they’re used for hunting. So how do we know that our citizens are going to only use their weapons for hunting.

Iran has nuclear power, how do we know they’re going to use it for weapons? I imagine we’ve got an eagle eye on them from space, so I don’t really think we have anything to worry about.

We’re treating Iran like a child, as if it is our responsibility to the world. Iran needs to be responsible for themselves. Are they really a credible threat? I don’t need to remind you that Iraq didn’t have WMDs did they?

Again, I think we’re fishing for reasons to invade them for oil. Remember that article about the official from Iran would was bashing America openly? Funny how that got press coverage here.

Countries need acceptable sources of energy in order to grow and develop… oh wait, thats bad isn’t it, because then we can’t control them anymore. OKAY I get it now, fuck me, I forgot that we need to be the best.

I say let Iran build nuclear power plants and grow as a country, and if they build missiles, take pictures of them and ask them why, and if we really have a problem with it, send in a spy and disable them and don’t tell anybody. Or buy them from them, we could use more missiles right? You never know when Argentina could attack us! I don’t really like the look on their face.

Time for compassion.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries